I want to say right up front that I was raised Jewish and now consider myself a spiritual person with no formal religious affiliation, so I recognize and acknowledge that I am not the target audience for this film, which has been described by many as “the best Evangelical sales tool in history.” My responses to the film are obviously colored by my own perspective. I also want to note here that I greatly respect Mel Gibson as a director (the film is beautifully mounted and acted), and I also respect him for having the courage of his convictions and for literally “putting his money where his mouth and heart are.” He financed the entire $25 million cost of the film himself and has been unabashed in his advocacy of his — and the film’s — conservative, Roman Catholic viewpoint. I deeply admire that kind of commitment to one’s faith. This film, unlike most movies, makes it almost impossible not to respond in a very personal way to its philosophy, and that’s one reason why I believe that it will be looked upon as such a cultural milestone. Again, Gibson deserves much credit for bringing all of this into the public arena for discussion.

All that being said, I must also say that the entire film seemed like the dying gasp of an old ultra-religious paradigm that is rapidly fading into oblivion. I had the distinct feeling that I was watching the symbolic sunset (which always burns brightly before it sets) to 2000 years of human history that, in the West, has been dominated by the Catholic Church. If, in fact, that turns out in the future to have been true, then Gibson has indeed ushered out this chapter of history in a blaze of ... gory. The physical suffering of Jesus is as gruesomely depicted as you have heard, perhaps more so, and it is unrelenting in its vivid and graphic detail.

On her ABC television interview with Mel Gibson on February 16, 2004, Diane Sawyer explained that, to Gibson and his conservative Roman Catholic believers, the “Passion” in the title of the film is not defined as one might think, but rather as being synonymous with “suffering.”

What a perfect metaphor.

For me, the film is a relentless ode to “suffering.” The whole tone seems intended to make us feel awful about being human beings. As an audience member, I felt like the human equivalent of what a dog must feel if its nose is brutally pushed into the carpet when it is being trained while it is being called a “Bad dog. Bad dog!”

Using the physical suffering of Jesus as the linchpin for the film puts brutality at the core of the film’s Christianity, and I just don’t believe that attitude is consistent with either the beautiful humanity of Jesus’ vision or the vision of modern Christianity. The life and death of Jesus and the stories of those around him are certainly the most famous in the western world. The entire raison d’être (reason of being) of the Catholic Church is a very strict and narrow view of the life, death, and the Divinity of Jesus. As, however, there have been simultaneous developments on two different levels that have shaken the very foundation of the brand of Catholicism to which Gibson adheres, the lasting effect of the film on everyone else may indeed be the polar opposite of what Gibson intended.

First, sex, criminal, and financial scandals have penetrated the core and sense of invincibility of the Catholic Church. Even true believers have looked at the Church and are demanding reforms and modernization. This whole distasteful descent also reminds me of a line I recently heard: “If Jesus came back now and saw what has been done in his name, he would never stop throwing up.”

Second, the last few decades have produced both popular (“The DaVinci Code”) and scholarly (the Dead Sea Scrolls and many “radical” looks at the women of the Bible) breakthroughs that have produced a profound effect on the way we view the “gospels,” upon which Gibson lays the foundation of his film, and that whole period of time. I, among others, have a very different perspective on Mary Magdalene, who is played in this film by the luminescent Italian actress, Monica Bellucci (who played the wife of the Merovingian in the last two Matrix films). I couldn’t help thinking about what she could have done with the role if she hadn’t been burdened by the director’s (and much of the Bible’s) take on her character as a “fallen woman.” For me, Magdalene may very well have been Jesus’ twin soul who consciously incarnated with him so together they could change the course of humanity. But — that’s another belief system ... another film ... another time ....

The Passion of The Christ reflects a perspective on the life and death of Jesus that we have certainly seen before, albeit not with this kind of brutality. The teachings and inspiration of Jesus — the man — have taken on a new meaning over the last fifty years or so. Many are beginning to see him as an extraordinary visionary who came to life as a human being to show us the beauty and potential for our humanity. Throughout the film, I kept thinking about Spiritual Cinema and the next 2000 years of our evolution, and believing that the time has come for us to stop being martyrs anymore. Stop dying for our beliefs. And live for them.

Truly, “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” Our time has come. Let’s get on with it.

Movie Mystic Chakra Rating for The Passion (For an explanation of The Chakra Rating System, please visit www.Movingmessagesmedia.com.

Chakra: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Rating: 2 3 2 2 2 3 2